The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rent tendered for a different period could be adjusted towards the rent due for the specific period, and the landlord was obligated to make such adjustment.

M.R.Sharma, J.

1. The respondent, who was a tenant under the petitioner tendered in Court rent for January, 1976, which was not due by that time. She also took up the plea that she had paid the rent upto December, 1975. In an application for ejectment filed by the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent had not paid the rent for December, 1976. He was of the view that the amount tendered for January, 1976, could not be adjusted for the rent payable for the month of December, 1976. On this ground he ordered the ejectment of the respondent. The view taken by the Appellate Authority was that the rent tendered by the tenant for a different period could be adjusted for the period for which it was due. On this basis, the learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of ejectment passed against the respondent. The petitioner-landlord has come in revision before this Court. The case was admitted to a D. B. on account of some conflict in judicial decisions. We do not feel it necessary to refer all those decisions because in Sheo Narain v. Sher Singh A.I.R. 1980 Supreme Court 138, 1980 (1) R.C.R. 255 the matter has been set at rest. In that case the rent due was tendered before, the Rent Controller before the first date of hearing. An argument was raised that such a tender was invalid. This argument was finally repelled by the Supreme Court with the following observations : -

"Even the Act does not prescribe any particular mode of deposit. In fact, the use of the words `tender or deposit in the proviso clearly postulates that the rent can be given to the landlord in either of the two modes. (1) It may be tendered to the landlord personally or to his authorised agent or it maybe deposited in Court which is dealing with the case of the landlord to his knowledge so that the landlord may withdraw the deposit whenever he likes. In the instant case, the appellant tenant chose the second course. How can it be said that a deposit before the Rent Controller where the case of the landlord was sub-judice would not be a valid deposit if it was in fact in existence on the date of first hearing to the knowledge of the landlord ? The reasoning of the High Court that the rent was deposited earlier that 11th May, 1967 and is, therefore, invalid does not appeal to us at all. In fact, if the tenant deposits the rent even before the first date of hearing, it is a solid proof of his bonafides in the matter and the legal position would be that if the rent is deposited before the first date of hearing, it will be deemed to have been deposited on the date of the hearing also because the deposit continues to remain in the court on that date and the position would be as if the tenant has deposited the rent in court for payment to the landlord. This is more particularly so because the Controller gave notice to counsel for the respondent on the first date of hearing that the amount had been deposited with the Controller. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that all the conditions necessary for the application of the proviso have been completely fulfilled in this case and the High Court was not at all justified in allowing the application of the landlord and directing ejectment of the appellant."

2. The principle enshrined in these observations applied to the facts of this case will full vigour. Herein, the rent was lying actually in the pockets of the landlord and unless he had adjusted it towards the rent due for the month of December, 1976, he had no business to retain the same.

3. Furthermore, in Duli Chand v. Mamanchand (dead) 1979 (2) R.C.R. 92 : 1979 (2) R.C.J. 52, rent deposited by the tenant by referring to Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, in the same Court in which the petition for eviction was filed by the landlord was treated to have been validly tendered provided the landlord had, on the first date of h